I am not a linquist, but it seems as if the Mughals brought Turkic variations into the Urdu speaking lands (much of modern Pakistan - not Turkey) from about the 16th century, but Urdu and classic Hindu speakers can understand each other and speak to each other to this day....Is this any different from a linquists point of view than the gradual intrusion of, say Magyar words and phrasing, into some of the Slavic languages during the centuries of Magyar domination? Or for that matter the development of modern English (with a one thousand year head start?) Seems like this 'argument' is much ado about very little....

Whatever....I would bet I am the only one here who hears Urdu every single day at work and my ear, well used to foreign tongues, disagrees. Have you actually read your references?

With some slight modifications, you would lose that bet, and yes I have read my references (have you? They explained everything quite neatly). Your ear is mistaken, and it does not determine how languages are categorized.

So Hindi by definition is Indo-European, but related Urdu is not? Ooooookay...

Please read the wiki articles, or really any other sources on languages. Hindi and Urdu are very closely related parts of Hindustani, which both clearly belong to the Indo-European family (Indo-Aryan sub-branch of Indo-Iranian).

Quote

Turkey got to be Turkey when the Ottomans, a Turkic tribe arrived, correct?

Whatever....I would bet I am the only one here who hears Urdu every single day at work and my ear, well used to foreign tongues, disagrees. Have you actually read your references?

With some slight modifications, you would lose that bet, and yes I have read my references (have you? They explained everything quite neatly). Your ear is mistaken, and it does not determine how languages are categorized.

So Hindi by definition is Indo-European, but related Urdu is not? Ooooookay...

Please read the wiki articles, or really any other sources on languages. Hindi and Urdu are very closely related parts of Hindustani, which both clearly belong to the Indo-European family (Indo-Aryan sub-branch of Indo-Iranian).

Quote

Turkey got to be Turkey when the Ottomans, a Turkic tribe arrived, correct?

Sigh... you're right, but your understanding of the Turkic migrations and loans words, along with the analogy with Magyar words making their way into Slavic languages was right on.

I will give a Czech to Slovak to Rusyn/Ukrainian to Russian example, based upon geography moving from west to east on the map.

A Slovak born and living in Bratislava likely can communicate well with a Czech born in Moravia as well as with his fellow Slovak countrymen living near Medzilaborce and the Ukrainian border. That Slovak born and living in Medzilaborce can communicate with and understand a Rusyn/Gallician/Ukrainian living and born near Uzhorod or L'viv, Ukraine. The Ukrainian from Uzhorod or L'viv can communicate with and understand a Ukrainian born and living near Kiev. The Kievan can likely understand and communicate with a Russian born and living in Ukraine. That Russian in turn can do the same with a citizen of Moscow. The citizen of Moscow can't communicate with or understand the Slovak from Bratislava unless he learned Slovak or the Slovak learned Russian. The folk's living between Bratislava and Uzhorod, regardless of their ethnology, probably know a few Hungarian idioms as well. This I know from first hand experience and family.

I don't know as I am not from the mid-east, but my brain tells me the same principals would hold true.

Now, in the 21st century's era of mass communication etc.... these generalizations may hold less true than they did in say, 1940, but they remain, never the less.

As I said earlier, an interesting subject, but not really germane to the truth about Mehmet and his conquest and degradation of the New Rome.

Just last night my wife and I rescreened the movie, Ararat. It's a heady slog dealing with a backdrop of the Armenian genocide by the Turks in 1915. It's germaine to this discussion in that the movie alludes numerous times to the modern Turkish denial of these events. There is no surprise that a Moslem version of the Fall of Constantinople should be any more faithful to the facts of history.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Just last night my wife and I rescreened the movie, Ararat. It's a heady slog dealing with a backdrop of the Armenian genocide by the Turks in 1915. It's germaine to this discussion in that the movie alludes numerous times to the modern Turkish denial of these events. There is no surprise that a Moslem version of the Fall of Constantinople should be any more faithful to the facts of history.

I would be shocked if they presented a film on the subject that was even ever so slightly balanced so it is no surprise.

Just FYI on the language debate you're having here: Disinterested linguists classify Hindi and Urdu as mutually intelligible varieties of the same language. When written in Devanagari by Hindus, it is referred to as "Hindi"; when written in Perso-Arabic by Muslims, it is referred to as "Urdu". The differences that do exist between them are not great enough to substantiate the claim that they are different languages, but they are treated as such for communal/religious, cultural, and political reasons. This is not at all uncommon; see: the Serbian-Croatian-Montenegrin continuum in the former Yugoslavia, Moldovan-Romanian in the former USSR, etc.

Just FYI on the language debate you're having here: Disinterested linguists classify Hindi and Urdu as mutually intelligible varieties of the same language. When written in Devanagari by Hindus, it is referred to as "Hindi"; when written in Perso-Arabic by Muslims, it is referred to as "Urdu". The differences that do exist between them are not great enough to substantiate the claim that they are different languages, but they are treated as such for communal/religious, cultural, and political reasons. This is not at all uncommon; see: the Serbian-Croatian-Montenegrin continuum in the former Yugoslavia, Moldovan-Romanian in the former USSR, etc.

the only problem is that on the basis that linquists deny that Urdu and Hindi are seperate languages, Swedish and Danish wouldn't be seperate languages, and then there is Norwegian, one language in two forms. Same with Yiddish and German etc.

no, just heavily inflenced, including its name: it comes from the Persian speaking Turkic rulers using the language of the camp (ordu)

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

the only problem is that on the basis that linquists deny that Urdu and Hindi are seperate languages, Swedish and Danish wouldn't be seperate languages, and then there is Norwegian, one language in two forms. Same with Yiddish and German etc.

And? I fail to see how that is a problem. Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian can be treated as forming a kind of dialect continuum (loosely, as I do not mean to imply that speakers on either end cannot understand one another), in that the existence of codified national varieties that differ from one another in some ways does not prevent them from being mutually intelligible (a Swedish acquaintance once told me that Danes basically speak "Swedish with porridge in their mouths") . Norway's Bokmal and Nynorsk situation is not a problem any more than having different forms of German somehow makes Swiss German and "standard" German different languages. And Yiddish and German could be comparable to, say, Ladino and Spanish. I speak Spanish more or less natively (since the age of 4), and what little Ladino I have been exposed to was no problem whatsoever (in fact, with my little Arabic training I didn't even have trouble with the Hebrew-derived words; it is not hard to figure out what "Mose salio de Misrain" means).

I am aware that there is no strict line between dialect and language, and I suppose I am more of a lumper than a splitter, to probably misuse the popular terms, but...really, man, come on. I don't even understand why this is being argued about.

Quote

no, just heavily inflenced, including its name: it comes from the Persian speaking Turkic rulers using the language of the camp (ordu)

Chuckle, I agree there. I accept correction and have no overriding yen to be right in Internet forum argument, unlike others. BTW, I never linked Urdu with Turkey directly, or did I?

No need for the bolded comment or defensiveness in general. If you reread the thread, you're the one who made it a bit nasty by throwing in the "whatever..." comment and appealing to your experience/authority on the matter. I was only trying to correct a mistake.

By the way, internet forum arguments are the most important thing ever, FACT! Note the bold font, all capped proclamation of the statement as a fact (which then becomes impossible to argue), followed by an exclamation point for good measure.

We can agree that Podkarpatska is right though, and we all look rather silly arguing over linguistic definitions in a thread about a Jack Chickesque Muslim cartoon.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So Hindi by definition is Indo-European, but related Urdu is not? Ooooookay...

Turkey got to be Turkey when the Ottomans, a Turkic tribe arrived, correct?

Turkey got to be Turkey much later, 1923 to be exact. Before that, the Ottoman Turks fancied themselves to be like the Ancient Romans. There was only one free man, the Sultan, and everybody else was an Osmanli (that is Ottoman). Of course, the Turkish Ottomans were first class citizens, non Turkish but Muslim Ottomans, second class citizens, and the Christian Ottomans were dhimmis.

Chuckle, I agree there. I accept correction and have no overriding yen to be right in Internet forum argument, unlike others. BTW, I never linked Urdu with Turkey directly, or did I?

No need for the bolded comment or defensiveness in general. If you reread the thread, you're the one who made it a bit nasty by throwing in the "whatever..." comment and appealing to your experience/authority on the matter. I was only trying to correct a mistake.

By the way, internet forum arguments are the most important thing ever, FACT! Note the bold font, all capped proclamation of the statement as a fact (which then becomes impossible to argue), followed by an exclamation point for good measure.

We can agree that Podkarpatska is right though, and we all look rather silly arguing over linguistic definitions in a thread about a Jack Chickesque Muslim cartoon.

Just last night my wife and I rescreened the movie, Ararat. It's a heady slog dealing with a backdrop of the Armenian genocide by the Turks in 1915. It's germaine to this discussion in that the movie alludes numerous times to the modern Turkish denial of these events. There is no surprise that a Moslem version of the Fall of Constantinople should be any more faithful to the facts of history.

Given the historical hack-job that is the Koran...

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

So Hindi by definition is Indo-European, but related Urdu is not? Ooooookay...

Turkey got to be Turkey when the Ottomans, a Turkic tribe arrived, correct?

Turkey got to be Turkey much later, 1923 to be exact. Before that, the Ottoman Turks fancied themselves to be like the Ancient Romans. There was only one free man, the Sultan, and everybody else was an Osmanli (that is Ottoman). Of course, the Turkish Ottomans were first class citizens, non Turkish but Muslim Ottomans, second class citizens, and the Christian Ottomans were dhimmis.

I'm missing the Ancient Roman connection.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Kinda how we demonize Muslims for how they treated us, but ignore how we treated pagans so badly when we forced them to convert? Or when Roman Catholics say they liberated the Aztecs from barbarism like human sacrifice, yet baptized their infants and then shattered their heads against the trees so that they wouldn't become pagans when they grew up?

The treatment and conversion of pagans changed (ever so slightly) from Early Christian times to the Medieval / Teutonic times where you could say the treatment (War) against the Pagans in Lithuania ( I believe) where treated very harshly and villages were ransacked and burned by Teutonic Knights. (Although the Teutonic Order did attack weaker Christian states as well in its strive for expansion.

(In the early 13th century, Lithuania was inhabited by various pagan Baltic tribes, which began to organize themselves into a state – the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.)

Michael Kritobulos was a Byzantine historian who personally witnessed the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, and he befriended and writes favorably of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror. As I understand, his book is perhaps the only known Byzantine history of the city itself for the first ten years after the conquest.

Dimitri Kitsikis is a modern Greek historian who advocates a customs and political union of Greeece with Turkey as a basis for a revived Ottoman empire. He asserts that the two peoples (Greeks and Turks) have had common enemies for a thousand years in the form of western capitalism and colonialism and that the conquest in 1453 was the greatest thing that could have happened to the Orthodox Church giving it extensive power to the Patriarchates which they had lacked in the Paleologan era and a blow to the Uniates and Latinizers.

I think Venetzia and Frankistan Crusaders kill Romaoi Stamboul in 1204. Romaoi never recover. Easy pickings for Osmanli. Angeloi dynasty very bad. Help bring Crusader Varvari to Stamboul. Basili Michael take back Stamboul in 1269 something. Romaoi (Vizanti) focus then on Stamboul, forget Iznik (Nicaea). Osmanli take Iznik, take Gallibolou, take Bulgaristan. Romaoi all done fifty years before Mehmed Fatih take Stamboul. Mehmed give only coup de grace. This why Yunani and all pravoslavie hate Pope more than hate Osmanli padishah. Though they hate Osmanli very much.

I think Venetzia and Frankistan Crusaders kill Romaoi Stamboul in 1204. Romaoi never recover. Easy pickings for Osmanli. Angeloi dynasty very bad. Help bring Crusader Varvari to Stamboul. Basili Michael take back Stamboul in 1269 something. Romaoi (Vizanti) focus then on Stamboul, forget Iznik (Nicaea). Osmanli take Iznik, take Gallibolou, take Bulgaristan. Romaoi all done fifty years before Mehmed Fatih take Stamboul. Mehmed give only coup de grace. This why Yunani and all pravoslavie hate Pope more than hate Osmanli padishah. Though they hate Osmanli very much.

For what it is worth, Michael Kritobulos records that when Mehmed the Conqueror observed his army overruning and pillaging the city after he entered in the gate, he shed tears and respectfully cried 'Oh, but what a great city we have destroyed!'